Re: Referendums

Not at all.
I think I might be considered moderately intelligent being the holder of a few degrees one being a masters in business administration the MBA. The other two are mathematics and engineering.

As a member of the electorate, I'd have a vote in a referendum including Brexit. But I just don;t know enough about the terms are going to be, how they would directly affect us to make an informed decision. I suspect I am not alone.

Re: Referendums

Governments will throw us the occasional bone, they call it democracy, but only if we respond in the way that they want. In the name of democracy they will continue to give us referendums until we give them the answer they wanted before the referendum. Referendums are pointless, but it does allow us to believe falsely that we live in a honest, and free society.

Re: Referendums

Well, I was actually referring to Thomas Carlyle's quote,not the person who purloined his quote.

Carlyle was an anti- democrat and an inspiration for fascism

His thinking was tainted by elitism and disdain for the masses.

Re: Referendums

For anything to be accurate, you need a representative sample.

Re: Referendums

What government do affects me a cleaner as much as you a person with degrees so I have as much right to a vote as you. It's up to the person setting the vote to make sure we all understand it.

I have heard many say people voted leave were not intelligent enough to understand but I've seen howling stupidity on both sides of that debate !

Re: Referendums

We're back to the Remainiacs' mantra that voters didn't know what they were voting for in the referendum.

Well, I did, and I'm sure most others did too.

It was a perfectly plain choice: remain in the EU or leave the EU. Simple as that.

Leaving conditions were not mentioned. Treason May's half measures were not mentioned either.

The only people trying to complicate matters are the anti-democratic Remainers who are desperate to reverse the referendum decision in order to suit their own wishes.

Re: Referendums

I don't see how you could have a referendum because you don't have a written constitution as such but if anything the recent Brexit plebiscite has shown why such an important decision needed a tougher test such as you outlined. It seems to me that the country is hopelessly divided by this issue and the close result has made it worse.

Australia does have a constitution and a tough test to change it which is, in my opinion, what was/is needed. Briefly:

First the EXACT clause that will replace the existing one has to be passed into law by both houses of Parliament. Then within 6 months (I think it is) the referendum has to be put to the people and it not only has to be passed by a majority of voters it also has to pass in a majority of states. This is the reason only 8 of 44 attempts to change the constitution have succeeded.

To apply this example to the Brexit vote the question would not be "Do you want to "leave" or "stay"? but would state the terms of leaving (or some minimum standard). Then it not only would have to then be passed by the majority of voters but it would also have to pass in three of the following "nations": England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (if it is good enough for Rugby then...)

However you did it it should have had a tougher test which would also make each side work harder for their cause and hopefully the result would be more acceptable to both sides. You only have to read the Brexit Forum to see the enmity the recent result has caused. It was a stuff up from go to whoa

Re: Referendums

The problem with the brexit referendum wasn't that it was leave or stay it's one side being unable to accept the result. If it had been other way round we wouldn't be still moaning about it. It also should have been sorted out by leavers not with a remainer in charge who is doing everything in her power to make it as complicated as she can so we stay as far in as possible, we should have left just left. They would soon have found grounds for agreements if the referendum had been acted upon.

Re: Referendums

He may have been all of that but it doesn't invalidate the quote.

I'm an electrical engineer. I would expect Joe public to vote on whether I needed a 630 Amp breaker on an 800 Amp unit.

Re: Referendums

I see a referendum as an event which is far too open to being manipulated by powerful influences, such as the Media, powerful Business people, etc.

I'd much rather get to a position where I can meet my MP, before any election and get his/her objectives and beliefs documented before he/she is elected.

Once elected I'd want to see regular meetings and discussions about which lines/votes he/she is involved in and how that is progressing.

Much like a business board room, meeting every month or three, whereby voters who wish to be involved are kept involved with the agreed objectives.

Our representative should be very visibly in support of us.
He/she should be much less visible to the regular Groups of Lobby people who are paid to inhabit the entrances to Parliament with a view to pushing their own business wishes.

We should be able to rate the performance of our MP and advise when they break the line.

Lobbying a representative should be barred, in my opinion, as my MP should only be driven by his/her constituents.

Let the Lobby players come to our meetings and Lobby
us instead of lobbying our rep!

Without the above, it's all to easy to get a representative who believes the exact opposite of the voters.

We got that.

Our man jumped ship when he realised his majority was pro Brexit. We must learn from that.Damage was done!